- Aproducing a particular driver whose case the head's rule cannot cover
- Bshowing that the head's rule, if accepted, leads to a result the head himself would reject
- Cquestioning whether the head has counted his trainees accurately over thirty years
- Darguing that the head's evidence is drawn from a body of cases that could not have contained the ones which would tell against him
Step-by-Step Solution
The head's thirty years cover only those who returned to him, and the very drivers who would refute him — twice-failed men who went away and did well — are the ones who never return. His evidence is therefore incapable of turning up a counter-case, whatever the truth may be. The inspector names no actual driver, so no counter-case is produced; he draws out no unwelcome consequence of the rule; and he does not dispute the head's arithmetic, only the pool it was drawn from.
Answer: D) arguing that the head's evidence is drawn from a body of cases that could not have contained the ones which would tell against him